Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The limits of term limits

There's no doubt that Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner has staked out a popular position on term limits.

He's
for 'em. In late July, Rauner formed a political action committee to
lead the charge to put a referendum on the November 2014 ballot calling
for an amendment to the state constitution limiting the years that
members of the General Assembly could stay in office.

And voters
love term limits: A nationwide Gallup Poll in January found 75 percent
approval for the idea of term limits for members of Congress. Rasmussen
Reports found 71 percent approval in 2011 and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
found 78 percent approval in 2010.

Closer to home, a 2009 Tribune/WGN poll found 76 percent of
Illinois voters endorsed term limits for state lawmakers as well as for
the governor, secretary of state and other constitutional officers.

We found a similar level of support when the Tribune polled on the issue in early 1994.

Why
did the Tribune ask the question back then? Well, because an aspiring
grass-roots politician was trying to use a term-limits petition drive to
boost his campaign for higher office.

That politician?

State Treasurer Pat Quinn, looking to move up to secretary of state.

He lost that race to Republican incumbent George Ryan by about a 3-2 margin.

So there is doubt that voter enthusiasm for the cause translates to enthusiasm for its loudest backer.

There's also doubt that the Illinois Supreme Court would even allow a
term-limits referendum on the ballot. In 1994, by a 4-3 vote, the
justices ruled that the Quinn-backed "Eight (years in office) is Enough"
proposition was outside the constitutional boundaries for citizen
initiatives.

(Quinn is now the governor, of course, having assumed
the office in January 2009, when Rod Blagojevich lost his impeachment
trial. Quinn's running for re-election in 2014, and if he wins, he'll
reach his self-championed eight-year limit in January 2017, roughly
halfway through his term.)

The greatest doubt of all, though, is whether term limits are actually a good idea.

While
the exact details of Rauner's proposal won't be known until they're
unveiled Sept. 3, the most obvious defect of most term-limit laws is
that they deny voters the right to support otherwise legally qualified
candidates.

Taking away that right ought to require a higher
threshold for public protection than the general observation that some
officeholders grow increasingly less responsive to their constituents
and more beholden to special interests the longer they stay in office.

A
less obvious but oft-noted defect in the 15 states that have
legislative term limits is that they weaken the authority and
accountability of lawmakers.

Crain's Cleveland Business
editorialized earlier this year that since term limits went into effect
in Ohio in 2000, they "have only increased the power of the lobbyists
and staff members, who become the only folks in Columbus around long
enough to have institutional memory and long-term contacts."

They also vastly increase the number of lame-duck legislators who have no particular motivation to heed the will of the voters.

And
finally, they are unnecessary in a democratic republic. Yes, it's
become cliche to the point of Pollyannaish to point out that we already
have term-limiting powers in the form of the secret ballot, but it's
true. Want to throw the bums out? You and fellow citizens have every
right at election time to send them packing.

Yes, cynical
redistricting and tsunamis of campaign cash for incumbents have made it
maddeningly difficult in many cases. Voter frustration is
understandable, and evidenced in the poll results with which I began
this column.

But it doesn't justify you, Bruce Rauner, Pat Quinn
or anyone else taking away my right to send my bums back to Springfield
to dither and delay if I want to.

A better idea, as I've floated
here before, is to enact term limits — 10 years, say — on legislative
leadership positions. Since you and I don't get to vote directly for
these positions, limiting them doesn't rob us of our franchise, and, who
knows, it might go a ways toward breaking up some of the logjams and
spreading around some of the power.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What Rauner doesn't know about government could fill a book. He's had success in business which often gives a fellow the idea that he can run a city, state or country. Remember our "MBA President" and what a great job he did? Me neither.

The concept of term limits is an old joke that some people can't stop telling. The Crain's quote emphasizes one of the downsides of actually implementing term limits. Someone please give us the upside.

I've been wishing for term limits for leadership positions for many years as well. I don't get the chance to vote against Mike Madigan because I don't live in his district, but I'm subject to his stranglehold on the state. But how could we possibly get leadership term limits to ever pass in Illinois? With Madigan controlling the legislature, it'll never come up for a vote.

Rauner is turning into Jim Oberweis before my eyes. He seems to think politics is all about spending a lot of money, saying things that most people want to hear, and avoiding all issues that carry even a hint of controversy.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm telling Kass first thing in the morning that I got dibs on "Raunerweis" as a derisive nickname.

We could randomly pick thru the phone book and get better representation than we get in Congress and this state.

Harold,

"Remember our "MBA President" and what a great job he did?" - He did serve 6 years as governor of Texas, did you forget that?

I know you don't like how 2008 turned out and neithr do I. Did you like the first seven years? Unemployment was under 5%, six years of economic growth - better than Obama economic growth. Bush highest deficit was lower than Obama's lowest deficit.

You just remember that you don't like business experience when you walk into the voting booth next spring and you have to cast a vote between Pat Quinn the failure and Bill Daley who has been President of SBC, on the board of JPMorgan and Fannie Mae (while the housing bubble was inflating).

How are term limits different than any other eligibility restriction? Term limits are just one more restriction.

Are your rights taken away because you can't vote for an 18 year old?

ZORN REPLY -- Because other eligibility restrictions are generally applied and apply to all people. They don't single out and exclude people (who have not broken the law) based on something legal that they've done. In that sense they discriminate unfairly.

And no, I don't like the two-term limit on US presidents, either. Never have. Even when Reagan was president.

--The only way we are going to get rid of the scum in Springfield, City Hall & the County Building will be term limits.
None of them are any good, none of them!
Lobbyists quit when they get a better job or get fired when they don't get what their employer wants.
Illinois is a failed state & what's really needed is for Congress, if it actually could get its act together, is to turn Illinois back into a territory until everyone in elective office is gone & a totally new constitution is written as the 1970 one is the failure that's caused this mess!

We already have term limits. It is called the ballot box. Funny how polls say one thing but voters do something else altogether- keep reelecting the same poltroons and macaroons over and over again. The only thing dumber than Illinois politicians are the people who vote for them.

@PV Bella: You're appallingly, hopelessly naive!
In case you have forgotten, NYC had a two term limit for the mayor & Bloomberg simply bribed the NYC City Council to override it & let him have a third term.
As for your absurd contention the ballot box is a form of term limits, here in Illinois, the politicians have rigged the game so getting on the ballot to challenge them is close to impossible.
There won't be any challengers to Mike Madigan in his district. His people will make sure that anyone that signs a petition for a challenger get city building inspectors harassing them. Then come the challenges to the signatures.
Quinn signed a bill recently that makes it harder to challenge an alderman because it doubles the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot.

Term limits cuts through this crap & just gets rid of them & their bloated pensions!

EZ is absolutely correct: Accountability is crucial and basic to our form of government. It's what our system is all about. Voters need to keep informed and vigilant. Televised political debates should be the primary--maybe exclusive--means of communicating with the voters. The election process should not allow lobbying by special interest groups and industries, out-of-control fundraising, and pointless, irresponsible, and costly advertising. That same money could be put to far better use.

@Zorn -- How do term limits discriminate any more than age restrictions? Term limits are generally applied. It applied equally to Reagan, Clinton, Bush and niw Obama and whoever the next president is. Not following your logic wrt discrimination.

If anything, the lack if term limits discriminates against new comers. The barriers to entry, patronage armies, campaign war chests, nepotism and others would be somewhat minimized with term limits.

The "MBA President" created 3 lines of business while he was the pretend CEO. Lets call them: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Medicare Part D. He created these lines of business without sufficient capital or revenue to expand them.

Just wondering, is this what we are teaching our new MBA's...to expand business without sufficient capital or revenue to ensure success?

I'm still pissed off that Eisenhower beat Stevenson, although Eisenhower could not be nominated in today's Republican Party. The Robert Taft wing eventually prevailed, although the current Republican Party does not have the Taft element of isolationism.

But any objective comparison look between Bush II and Obama shows that Obama wins hands down. He actually knows what is going on the government. Bush's understanding was often shakey, which is why he had to have an adult, his vice president, guiding him.

Robert - "He (Obama) actually knows what is going on the government." Well, let's see he didn't know about the IRS targeting of certain groups based on names, including the asking for information that the IRS is legally prohibited to ask for. He didn't know about Fast and Furious (and according the White House, no in DC did) but he used executive privilege to protect his aides from showing that they didn't know. According to his deputy press secretary, he didn't know anything about the Chris Lane murder case, despite the fact that the Australian government had raised the issue with regard to US tourism.

"Rauner is turning into Jim Oberweis before my eyes. He seems to think politics is all about spending a lot of money, saying things that most people want to hear, and avoiding all issues that carry even a hint of controversy.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm telling Kass first thing in the morning that I got dibs on "Raunerweis" as a derisive nickname."

GREG J REPLY -- My derisive nickname for him based on Pan's description and my own similar thoughts is "Raumney."

Garry, I submit that the solution for Illinois is to be acquired by another, better-run, state. Indiana or Wisconsin, perhaps. Or better yet, let's reconstitute the Northwest Territory as one state; think of the economies of scale! And that ol' Star-Spangled Banner was getting a bit cluttered, anyway.

I'm very much in favor of term limits. As I've said before, it would solve the problem of Mike Madigan, Strom Thurmond, et al.

Entrenched politicians do everything they can to ensure they will be reelected. The legislature needs fresh blood. We've permitted the incumbency advantage to be too strong.

FDR made some very major miistakes in his third term esp in his conduct of the war. By his fourth term, the Dems were doing everything they could to cover up the fact that he was too enfeebled to run again.

@DaveB: That's a great idea, except I would reverse it. Why don't we break up Illinois into two or three states, maybe Chicago, the suburbs, and the rest of the state, and let them have at it.

You do know that in Texas, the Governor is very weak, almost nothing more than a figurehead, while the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state Senate, is considered a more powerful political figure. It's like comparing the Queen of England to the Prime Minister. Bush rode the Bill Clinton economy during the 90s while doing little to improve things in Texas with his own specific programs.

--Term limits are unnecessary in a democratic republic? I can disprove that theory with two words: Mike Madigan. The citizens of this entire state suffer his wrath because a single district keeps voting for him. The same situation allowed former mayor King Richard II to terrorize all of Chicagoland.

Mr. Zorn, your defense of the status quo in this disaster area of a state baffles the mind sometimes.

ZORN REPLY -- Note that I suggest term limits for legislative leaders, such as Speaker Madigan. If it weren't forthe unlimited number of years he can hold that position, he'd just be a sw-side state rep of no concern to you

the solution is not term limits but rather legislature districts need to be compact on not allow the party in power to Gerrymander.
Eric , when will you get on the bandwagon to get enough signatures to change the constitution to a better method of redistricting?

ZORN REPLY -- I'm on that bandwagon, but which horses are pulling it? I'm unaware of any serious petition drives.

This is a generational moment of responsibility in Illinois -- for each of us -- to do everything we can to eradicate the incumbents who have crippled the state. All the usual reasons for opposing term limits are trumped, in Illinois, by that imperative. You do not share that imperative, Mr. Zorn, which is where you are wrong.

Eric, I am confused. You state as one of your arguments against term limits is that you doubt that the Illinois Supreme Court would allow for that type of vote. However, you support term limits on legislative leadership, but the constitution clearly states that the individual houses of the legislature have control over rules and leadership, so what are the chances that this type of referendum would be allowed to move forward?

ZORN REPLY -- Well, it was a narrow decision last time and I haven't analyzed it, so I don't know if it would pass muster as a citizen initiative or if a new panel of judges would simply vote a different way.

"The "MBA President" created 3 lines of business while he was the pretend CEO. Lets call them: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Medicare Part D. He created these lines of business without sufficient capital or revenue to expand them." - Let's look at these lines of businesses. Afghanistan and Iraq are finite lines of businesses - they will not go on forever like an entitlement. Medicare Part D - Bush should have bumped the Medicare tax to pay for that but didn't. Obama ahas been in office for over 4 years and has yet to come near "funding" this. Are you upset with him also?

As for lack of revenues to fund these lines of buisnesses and the gov't in general, gov't revenues nearly went up $600 billion in just 4 years after he cut tax rates - something you libs can't wrap your head around. The deficit was down to 4161 billion in 2007 with Medicare Part D and the two wars. What's Obama's excuse for his trillion dollar deficits?

BC,

And six years as governor of Texas gives one a lot more leadership experience as compared to four years as a junior senator.

"Bush rode the Bill Clinton economy during the 90s while doing little to improve things in Texas with his own specific programs." Im 200 the economy was weakening - the DJIA dropped by 10% and the NASDAQ was crashing as the dot.com bubble was bursting. Bush inherited and economy that was 40 days from recession.

Pruter,

Bill Clinton wouldn't be nominated in today's democratic. How do you think his welfare reform (which Obama has unwound) and his capital gains tax cuts would go over in today's party?

It's not often that I agree with Eric Zorn, but there is a first time for everything. People who continue to vote for the incumbents and then complain about them are fools. Eric, you hit the nail on the head. Make term limits for the leadership positions.

Looks like someone has started the ball rolling.but it is going to take a lot of publicity to get the required number of signatures. Basically too many people (read elected public officials) that have a vested interested in maintaining the current system. It appears the change to the constitution has to be very clear in the process by which redistricting is done or it will be corrupted to what we currently have.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.